9
grounds for eviction.’ (. . . § 1954.53(e).) [Citation.] Viewed as a sanction for the misuse
of owner move-in notices, Regulation 1016 does not regulate ‘the initial rate for a
dwelling unit’ (. . . § 1953.54(a)) and is a permissible regulation of ‘the grounds for
eviction.’ (. . . § 21954.53(e)).”
Nor does the decision in Palmer/Sixth Street Properties, L.P. v. City of Los
Angeles (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 1396 (Palmer), also relied on by the Maks, support their
contention that Regulation 1016 is invalid. Palmer invalidated a local measure that
required developers to provide a certain number of affordable housing units at regulated
rental levels as conflicting with and preempted by the provisions of the Act that permit
the property owner to designate the initial rental rate of residential units. The court there
held that measure “directly conflicts with Costa-Hawkins Act’s vacancy decontrol
provisions” (175 Cal.App.4th at p. 1411), but there is no such conflict in the present case.
The Act explicitly excludes from vacancy decontrol situations where “the preceding
tenancy has been terminated by the owner by notice pursuant to Section 1946.1.”
(§§ 1954.52, subd. (a)(B)(i), 1954.53, subd. (a)(1).)
A far more comparable case, supporting the validity of Regulation 1061, is
Apartment Assn. of Los Angeles County, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (2009) 173
Cal.App.4th 13. That case upheld the validity of a local ordinance providing that if a
landlord demolishes residential property subject to rent control and builds new residential
rental units on the same property within five years, the newly constructed units are also
subject to the rent control law. This ordinance was enacted pursuant to a provision of the
Ellis Act (Gov. Code, § 7060.2, subd. (d)) to “discourage landlords from evicting their
tenants under the false pretense of going out of business pursuant to the Ellis Act.” (173
Cal.App.4th at p. 27.) In rejecting the argument that the measure was prohibited by the
later-enacted provisions of the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act, the court pointed out
that “section 1954.52, subdivision (a)(1) is modified by subdivision (c) of . . .
section 1954.52 [which], by its terms, does not affect the authority of cities to ‘regulate or
monitor the basis for eviction.’ ” (173 Cal.App.4th at p. 26.) The court held the ordinance
“regulates the basis for eviction within the meaning of . . . section 1954.52,